2

On June 4, 2014, EPA opened a 60-day public comment period on the Registration Review

Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) for Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite, Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, 

and Sulfur (79 FR 32284 (FRL-9911-16) (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0278). The comment period 

ended on August 4, 2014. During the public comment period, EPA received comments from the 

Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the 

Agricultural Commissioner of San Luis Obispo County, California. The Agency has responded 

below to the individual comments by category and source for the comment.

The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(USDA APHIS) submitted comments on the Proposed Interim Registration Review 

Dockets: Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118; Carbon and Carbon Dioxide 

EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0705.

Points of agreement with EPA:

• Sub-/separate label approach would integrate APHIS consultations with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) for strategic use of gas cartridges and allow rare use of the 

products on other species as allowed under FIFRA 2(ee) in addition to being protective of 

threatened and endangered species under ESA.

• The use of sub-county range maps for threatened and endangered species and locations 

where gas cartridge use is permitted in Bulletins Live! is an improvement over countylevel Bulletins. 

Points needing further clarification with EPA:

Comment 1: USDA APHIS states that there were 9 proposed interim Bulletins. 

EPA Response 1: The Agency would like to clarify the number of Bulletins that were proposed. 

The Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision included county Bulletins for a number of 

counties in each of the 9 states:

1) Alabama (7 counties)

2) Arizona (2 counties)

3) California (6 counties)

4) Louisiana (6 counties)

5) Mississippi (27 counties)

6) North Carolina (19 counties)

7) Tennessee (9 counties)

8) Utah (10 counties)

9) Virginia (5 counties)
3

Comment 1A: The informal consultation process used to draft the 9 proposed interim Bulletins 

is unclear and needs to be explicitly stated. Furthermore, APHIS notes inconsistencies with 

county-level habitat designations found in the Bulletins compared with those found on FWS’ 

website and in the FWS published recovery plans.

EPA Response 1A: On April 8, 2010, EPA initiated informal consultation with FWS on the 

preliminary risk assessment for the gas cartridges. As a part of ongoing discussions from March 

2012 through January 2013, FWS provided species range maps (i.e., shapefiles) for over 50 

listed species. EPA then shared these maps with the registrants for the gas cartridges, including 

APHIS, and asked if the registrants would be willing to off-label the use of gas cartridges in any 

of the areas with listed species. The registrants agreed to off-label the use of gas cartridges in the 

ranges of 12 listed species. Between these initial discussions and the inclusion of the draft 

Bulletins in the PIDs, one of the 12 species, the Island Night lizard, was delisted and removed 

from the draft Bulletins. Therefore, Bulletins for 11 species were proposed in the PID. 

EPA defers to FWS to provide the best source of authoritative information on species range data. 

The shapefiles used in the draft Bulletins were received from FWS and are considered by FWS 

to be the best available information on the range of the species, although this information may 

not agree with the information they provide on their website or in their recovery plans. If APHIS 

has concerns regarding these shapefiles, they may contact the FWS. If EPA receives a revised 

shapefile from FWS, this revised shapefile will be used in the Bulletins.

Comment 1B: The complete Pesticide Limitation Code system used in the proposed interim 

Bulletins is not identified. APHIS would like further information on this coding system.

EPA Response 1B: Pesticide Limitation Codes are developed between EPA and the chemical 

registrant. APHIS can view the Pesticide Limitation Codes for existing Bulletins online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/espp. 

Comment 1C: The map images in the proposed interim Bulletins are too small and APHIS 

recommends that EPA provide finer resolution maps.

EPA Response 1C: When the PIDs were issued, EPA was still using the first version of 

Bulletins Live! which used static, county-level maps with limited resolution. However, a newly 

updated geospatial tool, Bulletins Live! Two, is now available and allows the user to zoom in and 

out, thus providing finer resolution. 

Comment 1D: The proposed interim Bulletins do not contain an issue date and APHIS 

recommends that EPA number and date each version to avoid confusion among applicators.

EPA Response 1D: All final Bulletins have a “Valid For” date with a month and year. This is 

because the user must select the month and year in which they will apply the pesticide to obtain a 

valid Bulletin. The “Valid For” dates were specifically removed from the draft Bulletins issued 

with the PIDs because the final date for Bulletins to become enforceable was unknown at the 
4

issuance of the PID. Once the final Bulletins are issued, they will have a “Valid For” date (month 

and year). 

Comment 1E: APHIS indicated the need for additional time to evaluate the impact to 

operational programs of the proposed limitations in Bulletins Live! for the Coachella Valley 

fringe-toed lizard and Morro Bay kangaroo rat.

EPA Response 1E: Due to comments from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

(CDPR) and discussions with CDPR and FWS, EPA is no longer proposing Bulletins for the 

Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard and Morro Bay kangaroo rat prior to formal consultation. 

These species will be evaluated by the FWS during the formal consultation process. 

Comment 1F: Aside from the proposed Bulletin restrictions for the Channel Island foxes in 

California, APHIS cannot agree at this time to any of the other proposed geographic restrictions 

for the Mount Graham red squirrel (Arizona), Carolina northern flying squirrel (Tennessee and 

North Carolina), the desert slender salamander (California), because the resolution of the maps 

does not allow them to determine whether or not the habitat delineations are in agreement with 

boundaries of Federal lands. 

EPA Response 1F: Due to the comments received from CDPR, and discussions with CDPR and 

FWS, EPA is no longer proposing Bulletins for the species in California, including the Channel 

Island foxes and the desert slender salamander, prior to formal consultation. Upon further review 

of the range for the Carolina northern flying squirrel, only 79% of the species range occurs

within Federal land boundaries. As a result, the Agency is no longer proposing Bulletins for this 

species prior to formal consultation. These species will be evaluated by the FWS during the 

formal consultation process. 

The initial shapefile received from the FWS for the Mount Graham red squirrel was completely 

within Federal land boundaries. However, when EPA asked FWS to confirm that the shapefile 

for this species was still accurate, FWS provided a revised shapefile that was no longer 

completely within Federal land boundaries. The Agency proposed, and the registrants, including 

APHIS, agreed to prohibit gas cartridge use in the revised range of the Mount Graham red 

squirrel. However, Bulletins for the gas cartridge products that will be amended to be used only 

by APHIS Wildlife Services personnel will include language that would allow use of the product 

within the range of the species prohibited by gas cartridge Bulletins if certain conditions are met.

Comment 2: APHIS inquires about the process for issuing future Bulletins and updating maps. 

Specifically, if a new Bulletin is issued, will there be an opportunity to review and comment on 

draft Bulletins to ensure accuracy before they are incorporated in Bulletins Live!? Also, what is 

the review process for potentially affected registrants and users? APHIS would like more 

information on how EPA plans to accomplish the addition of new and/or updated threatened and 

endangered species information, including delisting of species, within each Bulletin.
5

EPA Response 2: Information on EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP), of 

which Bulletins are a part, can be found in the Federal Register (70 FR 66392). EPA intends to 

update Bulletins as regulatory decisions are made, or when a new body of data becomes 

available. As with any potential change to a pesticide product label for which it has been 

determined that pesticide use limitations are necessary to protect endangered species, the

registrant of the product will have an opportunity to review the specific use limitations and the 

Bulletins prior to issuance. Further, registrants retain the rights they have under FIFRA, 

regarding EPA’s determination that use of the product needs to be modified. 

Comment 3: APHIS would like to know how gas cartridge users/applicators with no cell phone 

or internet access to Bulletins Live! in the field can obtain information regarding threatened and 

endangered species use restrictions.

EPA Response 3: Users must visit http://www.epa.gov/espp or call 1-800-447-3813 prior to 

using the pesticide in an area where there is no internet or cell phone coverage. EPA can mail or 

email the Bulletin to users, if necessary. Bulletins can be obtained up to 6 months prior to using 

the chemical.

Comment 4: APHIS inquires about the process of referencing Bulletins Live! on pesticide labels 

and requests the opportunity to review and comment on any additional language that is intended 

to be incorporated on product labels.

EPA Response 4: EPA intends to incorporate the following language which is similar to other 

pesticide product labels with Bulletins:

“It is a Federal offense to use any pesticide in a manner that results in the death of an endangered 

species. Use of this product may pose a hazard to endangered or threatened species. When using 

this product, you must follow the measures contained in the Endangered Species Protection 

Bulletin for the area in which you are applying the product. To obtain Bulletins, no more than six 

months before using this product, consult http://www.epa.gov/espp/ or call 1-800-447-3813. You 

must use the Bulletin valid for the month in which you will apply the product.” 

Comment 5: APHIS is concerned that there are inconsistencies, for some threatened and 

endangered species, between the Bulletins and the Endangered Species Considerations section of 

existing APHIS labels. As a result, APHIS wants to know how the EPA intends to address the 

transition from the current threatened and endangered species language on the label to a 

dynamic Bulletins Live! system that is updated as new effects determinations are issued.

EPA Response 5: As is stated in the gas cartridge Interim Decisions (IDs), Section IV Interim 

Registration Review Decision, registrants must submit revised labeling incorporating the 

mitigation measures and appropriate label language as listed in Appendix C within 60-days of 

the IDs being issued. As a registrant for gas cartridge products (EPA Registration Numbers 

56228-2 and 56228-21), USDA/APHIS must submit proposed amendments to their existing 

product labels and applications for new products as described in the IDs. Revised labels will 
6

have the prescribed threatened and endangered species language and information directing users

to visit the Bulletins Live! Two website, as indicated in the IDs. As new effects determinations 

are made in the future, instructions will be given to registrants at the time on the procedures to 

follow for submission of updated labels as needed. 

Comment 6: APHIS would like information on the process that EPA will use to initiate ESA 

Section 7 consultation with the FWS. Specifically, APHIS would like additional information on 

the timeframe (start date, etc.) of the consultation process, what information will be used during 

consultation, and how existing local consultations with FWS undertaken by APHIS will be 

incorporated into deliberations. APHIS requests copies of documentation, including the 

Biological Assessment and any corresponding analyses for review prior to EPA contacting FWS 

to initiate formal consultation. APHIS would also like EPA to specify how APHIS will be 

involved in the consultation process.

EPA Response 6: EPA initiates consultation with the Services by sending a letter requesting 

consultation. EPA expects to initiate formal consultation with FWS after the Interim Decision is 

issued. 

EPA has initiated informal consultation with the Services in this case, and intends to continue to 

provide documentation in the public docket as part of registration review, including the risk 

assessment, addenda/refinements to the risk assessment, the letter to FWS initiating formal 

consultation, and the PID. 

Regarding local consultations with FWS undertaken by APHIS, EPA suggested, and APHIS 

agreed to the following language for the APHIS Wildlife Service users in Bulletins: “Use of the 

gas cartridge products by USDA/APHIS personnel is prohibited in this area, unless 

USDA/APHIS has consulted with the U.S. FWS on the use of these products within the specified 

area and follows all U.S. FWS specifications for use.”

The role of the applicant, or registrant, in the consultation process is outlined in the Final ESA 

Section 7 Consultation Handbook, dated March 1998. It states:

“If the Federal agency identifies an applicant, the Services and the action agency meet their 

obligations to that party as outlined in 50 CFR §402 through the following:

o The action agency provides the applicant an opportunity to submit information for 

consideration during the consultation;

o The applicant must be informed by the action agency of the estimated length of any 

extension of the 180-day timeframe for preparing a biological assessment, along with 

a written statement of the reasons for the extension;

o The timeframes for concluding formal consultation cannot be extended beyond 60 

days without the applicant’s concurrence;

o The applicant is entitled to review draft biological opinions obtained through the 

action agency, and to provide comments through the action agency;
7

o The Services will discuss the basis of their biological determination with the applicant 

and seek the applicant’s expertise in identifying reasonable and prudent alternative to 

the action if likely jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat is determined; 

and

o The Services provide the applicant with a copy of the final biological opinion.

The Services do not work directly with or take comments directly from the applicant without the 

knowledge or consent of the action agency [50 CFR 402.14(g)(5)].”

Comment 7: In the instance where a habitat map may not be available for a species, APHIS 

seeks clarification on how any restrictions on these species will be articulated on the APHIS 

labels until the ESA Section 7 process is completed.

EPA Response 7: Without a habitat map, Bulletins cannot be drafted, and therefore, the label 

restrictions will remain until formal consultation is completed.

Comment 8: APHIS asks EPA to elaborate on how the FWS designation of “Experimental 

Populations” for threatened and endangered species will be considered in Bulletins Live!. Since 

these populations are considered non-essential by FWS, APHIS suggests that EPA not include 

restrictions on product use for these areas in Bulletins Live!

EPA Response 8: Regarding species that are subject to Section 7 consultation under the ESA,

each member of an essential experimental population is treated like a threatened species. Nonessential experimental populations, not in a National Park or refuge, are treated like a proposed 

species, and those members of non-essential populations occurring in a National Park or refuge 

are treated as threatened species.

Comment 9: APHIS noted that FWS is actively trying to develop agreements with private 

landowners to allow landowners to use gas cartridges to control pest species when there is some 

risk of impacting listed species on adjacent land (e.g., Safe Harbor or border baiting). APHIS 

feels that the benefit provided to the listed species outweighs the risk, because it makes 

landowners more accepting of listed species. This is exemplified by FWS’ efforts to re-establish 

populations of black-footed ferrets. FWS is working with APHIS Wildlife Services to control 

prairie dogs on property adjacent to black-footed ferret reintroduction sites. APHIS feels that 

gas cartridges are a low risk option for prairie dog control, and that the black-footed ferret 

reintroduction projects could fail if the border control provision is not considered in mitigation 

options. APHIS seeks confirmation regarding EPA’s consideration/approval of the proposed 

approach that EPA make allowances in Bulletins Live! for border control efforts designed to 

enhance listed species recovery.

EPA Response 9: EPA is aware of the border control issue, has considered it in previous 

consultations with FWS (i.e., Rozol and Kaput-D Prairie Dog Bait consultations) and will also 

consider it during formal consultations with FWS for the gas cartridges. 
8

Comment 10: APHIS seeks confirmation regarding EPA’s consideration/approval of the 

proposed approach that EPA make allowances for gas cartridge use in urban environments and 

take into consideration local Section 7 consultations. 

EPA Response 10: Please see Response 6 above. Regarding local consultations with FWS 

undertaken by APHIS, EPA suggested, and APHIS agreed to the following language for the 

APHIS Wildlife Service users: “Use of the gas cartridge products by USDA/APHIS personnel is 

prohibited in this area, unless USDA/APHIS has consulted with the U.S. FWS on the use of 

these products within the specified area and follows all U.S. FWS specifications for use.”

Comment 11: APHIS requests more information regarding the ESA Section 7 consultation 

process with the CDPR and FWS. APHIS requests information on the scope of the consultation, 

such as which species and gas cartridge uses are included in the consultation, and the timeline 

of the consultation process. APHIS expresses concern that given the use restrictions based on the 

threatened and endangered species range maps, a considerable amount of land in the Central 

Valley would become unavailable for the APHIS gas cartridge products and that, as a result, 

alternatives could potentially pose a greater risk to human health and non-target species.

EPA Response 11: Due to the comments received from CDPR, and discussions with CDPR and 

FWS, EPA is no longer proposing Bulletins for the species in California prior to formal 

consultation with FWS. These species will be evaluated by the FWS during the formal 

consultation process. However, in regard to the question about the consultation process, EPA 

engages impacted stakeholders and the FWS during consultation in an effort to develop 

mitigation measures that are protective of listed species while not placing undue burdens on 

stakeholders.

Comment 12: APHIS seeks confirmation from EPA regarding the sub-label approach, that the 

sub-label would integrate the APHIS consultations with FWS for strategic uses of gas cartridges, 

and allow the rare use of the products on other species as allowed under FIFRA 2(ee). More 

specifically, APHIS would like to know how the EPA will distinguish consumer sub-labels from 

APHIS sub-labels: 1) how will the labels be written (e.g., rodent uses versus other uses); 2) how 

will the sub-labels be maintained (e.g., annual maintenance fees and state registration fee 

requirements) and managed logistically for storage and distribution; and, 3) how will the sublabels be enforced (e.g., restricted use versus general use)?

EPA Response 12: Based on discussions between EPA and State Lead Agency representatives, 

the sub-label approach is not feasible due to difficulty with enforcement. On September 17, 

2014, EPA met with APHIS and explained the problems associated with the sub-label approach 

and proposed an alternative approach. EPA proposed separate registrations for the APHIS 

Wildlife Service uses and the general uses. APHIS agreed that the existing two gas cartridge 

registrations (EPA Reg. No. 56228-2, “Gas Cartridge” and 56228-21, “Large Gas Cartridge”) 

would be divided into four registrations:
9

1) “Large Gas Cartridge” for APHIS Wildlife Service use

2) “Large Gas Cartridge” for consumer use

3) “Gas Cartridge” for APHIS Wildlife Service use

4) “Gas Cartridge” for consumer use 

Both consumer use products will restrict use only to target species listed on the labels, and will 

include a reference to Bulletins Live! Two with the following language:

“Use of gas cartridges (containing some or all of the following active ingredients: carbon 

dioxide, carbon, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, and sulfur) is prohibited in this area.” 

The APHIS Wildlife Service labels will not include the restriction to allow use only on target 

species listed on the label. These labels will also include a reference to Bulletins Live! Two; 

however, regarding local consultations with FWS undertaken by APHIS, EPA suggested, and 

APHIS agreed to the following language for the APHIS Wildlife Service users: 

“Use of the gas cartridge products by USDA/APHIS personnel is prohibited in this area, unless 

USDA/APHIS has consulted with the U.S. FWS on the use of these products within the specified 

area and follows all U.S. FWS specifications for use.” 

The products will not be considered Restricted Use Pesticides. Regarding maintenance fees, 

storage, and distribution logistics, the EPA’s Registration Division (RD) will work with 

USDA/APHIS to resolve these issues once the new product applications have been submitted.

Comment 13: APHIS asks that EPA evaluate the different risk profiles for threatened and 

endangered species presented by gas cartridge products used to control rodents versus gas 

cartridge products used to control predators, and that EPA consider mitigation measures that 

are targeted to the unique risks of each product.

EPA Response 13: EPA determined in its June 28, 2013, Revision to the environmental fate and 

ecological risk assessment for carbon dioxide, and for carbon, sawdust, sodium nitrate, 

potassium nitrate and sulfur containing cartridges, that both rodent control and predator control 

(i.e., large) gas cartridges may pose risks of concern to the listed species, with the exception of 

the gray and red wolf, for which EPA only determined a risk from the large gas cartridge. Any 

further refinements of the risk picture will occur as part of the formal consultation process.

Comment 14: APHIS requests that EPA provide the list of 7 species for which “No Effect” 

determinations were made for the consumer-use Gas Cartridge product sub-label and for which 

EPA will seek concurrence on “May Effect, NLAA” determinations with FWS for the APHIS 

Wildlife Services-use sub-label. Once APHIS receives the list of 7 species, they may have 

additional species-specific comments on which to follow up with EPA.
10

EPA Response 14: EPA’s most recent revision/addendum to the risk assessment, entitled, 

Revision to the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Carbon Dioxide and for 

Carbon, Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate and Sulfur Containing Cartridges, June 28, 

2013, states on page 25 that if the label(s) are clarified to limit the use of the gas cartridges to 

only those species currently listed on the labels that:

“These label changes would ensure that no exposure would occur for seven species, and 

consequently a “No Effect” determination could be made for these seven species:

1. Bog turtle

2. St. Andrew beach mouse

3. Perdido Key beach mouse

4. Alabama beach mouse

5. Southeastern beach mouse

6. Anastasia Island beach mouse

7. Choctawhatchee beach mouse”

Comment 15: APHIS requests that the sub-label language for the APHIS-registered pesticide 

products be changed so that ‘USDA APHIS Wildlife Services applicators’ are listed as users and 

not ‘FWS applicators’.

EPA Response 15: APHIS should submit revised labels with the desired language change; they 

will be reviewed by RD.

Comment 16: APHIS requests that EPA explicitly state how they are going to handle any 

threatened and endangered species restrictions on the label for APHIS Gas Cartridge products 

within the ranges of the 7 “NLAA” species for which EPA will soon seek concurrence from FWS. 

Will threatened and endangered species language on product labels be revised before EPA seeks 

concurrence from FWS?

EPA Response 16: The APHIS Wildlife Service’s gas cartridge labels will not specifically 

address the 7 species listed above in the response to comment 14. They will be considered 

NLAA on the basis that APHIS Wildlife Services personnel are trained to identify target pest 

burrows, and will not use gas cartridges in burrows that contain the 7 species listed above.

Comment 17: APHIS seeks clarification on EPA’s plan for consultation on indirect effects with 

FWS. APHIS would like to be involved in discussions on indirect effects species prior to and 

during any consultation process with FWS to ensure accuracy of that list. 

EPA Response 17: The EPA welcomes APHIS to join the conversation on potential indirect 

effects of gas cartridges to threatened and endangered species impacts during consultation. As a 

registrant, APHIS will be included in the consultation process.
11

Comments on Species-Specific Issues

Comment 18: APHIS expresses concern regarding the use of species maps in formal 

consultations with FWS under Section 7.

EPA Response 18: The shapefiles used to develop the species maps provided to APHIS were 

received from FWS and are considered by FWS to be the range of the species. If APHIS has 

concerns regarding these shapefiles, they may contact the FWS. If EPA receives a revised 

shapefile from FWS, the revised shapefile will be used in the Bulletins. 

Comment 19: APHIS Wildlife Services has consulted with the local FWS on APHIS Wildlife 

Services use of the Large Gas Cartridge. Through this consultation FWS determined that Large 

Gas Cartridge use would not likely adversely impact 37 listed threatened and endangered 

species. 

EPA Response 19: EPA is interested in seeing the results of the consultation between APHIS 

Wildlife Services and FWS regarding the 37 species that FWS determined would not likely be 

adversely impacted by Large Gas Cartridge use. USDA/APHIS is expected to provide the results 

of these local consultations to EPA so that they can be considered and shared with FWS as EPA

moves forward with formal consultation.

Comment 20: APHIS suggests that ground squirrel control operations at airports and efforts to 

control zoonotic disease outbreaks might be severely impacted throughout California due to 

geographic use restrictions.

EPA Response 20: Due to the comments received from CDPR, and discussions with CDPR and 

FWS, EPA is no longer proposing Bulletins for the species in California prior to formal 

consultation. These species will be addressed in formal consultation with FWS.

Comment 21: APHIS is interested in EPA’s mitigation or labeling plans for the red wolf as well 

as for the gray wolf in areas where it has not been delisted. APHIS is concerned over the range 

maps EPA previously provided for these two species and would like to see the Biological 

Assessment (BA) or other underlying data used by EPA prior to the FWS consultation process.

EPA Response 21: There are currently no shapefiles available on the gray or red wolf from the 

FWS. As a result, these species will be covered in formal consultation with the FWS.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) submitted comments on the 

Proposed Interim Decision Document found in the Registration Review Dockets: Inorganic 

Nitrate/Nitrite EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118; Carbon and Carbon Dioxide EPA-HQ-OPP2007-0705; and Sulfur EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176. 

Comment 22: CDPR requests that the EPA adopt the existing protection measures for gas 

cartridges described in the PRESCRIBE system. FWS has already concurred that the Grain Bait 
12

and Pelletized Rodenticide and Burrow Fumigant Bulletins upon which the PRESCRIBE 

measures are based, adequately protect federally listed species. 

EPA Response 22: The Agency thanks CDPR for bringing to our attention the existing measures 

in California for protecting listed species. The Agency reviewed the existing protection measures 

in PRESCRIBE and considered incorporating these measures into the Agency’s Bulletins Live!

approach. However, FWS has informed the Agency and CDPR, that it would need to re-evaluate 

the existing measures in PRESCRIBE to see if they are still adequate to support the 1996 “Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA)” determination concurrence1. Therefore, the Agency cannot 

rely on California’s existing mitigation measures to make a NLAA determination for those species. 

The Agency will request, through Section 7 Endangered Species consultation, that FWS determine 

what mitigation measures are necessary.

Comment 23: CDPR is concerned that the proposed Bulletin maps for four California counties 

(Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara) are too broad in describing 

the species habitat. DPR believes the maps located in the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) are more specific with data to the nearest section 

(square mile) of the areas. CDPR comments that generalization of the habitat dissipates efforts 

to protect the species and may diminish credibility with stakeholders. 

EPA Response 23: For Section 7 ESA consultations, EPA relies on the best available species 

range data which is provided by the Federal agency that oversees the recovery of a given listed 

species. In the case of gas cartridges, EPA has relied on range data submitted by listed species 

experts within the Field Offices of the FWS. EPA has requested that CDPR and FWS work 

together to ensure that the best available data are used to determine the geographic range of the 

species. However, EPA is no longer proposing mitigation in the form of Bulletins for the listed 

species in California prior to formal consultation with FWS. 

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Defenders of Wildlife submitted comments 

on the Proposed Interim Registration Review Dockets: Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite EPA-HQOPP-2007-1118; Carbon and Carbon Dioxide EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0705; and Sulfur EPA–

HQ–OPP–2008–0176.

Comment 24: The commenters identified a number of species that have been listed since 2010 

that may require geographically-targeted restrictions to avoid jeopardy and other species that 

may be listed in the next several years.

 1 United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Services. “Approval of Two EPA Pesticide Bulletins 

For Grain Bait and Pelletized Rodenticides and Burrow Fumigants.” November 1, 1996. This document can be 

found in the EPA’s public docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118-0045) at www.regulations.gov.
13

EPA Response 24: The Agency thanks CBD and the Defenders of Wildlife for bringing the 

additional listed species to our attention and will address these additional species in the formal 

consultation with FWS.

Comment 25: In its 2010 environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for gas cartridges, 

the EPA “identified potential direct effects for listed terrestrial mammals, terrestrial birds 

(including amphibians and reptiles for which birds serve as a surrogate) and terrestrial 

invertebrates, based on 100% mortality assumed at the application site from asphyxiation.” As a 

result, the EPA engaged in informal consultations with the Service regarding potential impacts 

to listed species. Through this process 56 species were identified which were likely to be 

adversely affected by the use of gas cartridges. Through the consultation process, RPAs and 

RPMs were developed requiring a qualified applicator when the products are applied in the 

range of the Fresno kangaroo rat, giant kangaroo rat, Stephen’s kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo 

rat, Point Arena mountain beaver, San Joaquin kit fox, and desert tortoise. For other species, 

specific geographic use restrictions in the ranges of endangered species were required for the 

Hualapai Mexican vole, Morro Bay kangaroo rat, Utah prairie dog, Coachella Valley fringetoed lizard, Island night lizard, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Francisco garter snake, Eastern 

Indigo snake, gopher tortoise, and black-footed ferret. For other species, between 1993 and 

2007, the EPA and the Service have consulted to identify RPAs and RPMs to protect listed 

species from gas cartridge use, including specific restrictions and requirements for the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services agency.

EPA Response 25: The history described above is not completely accurate. RPAs and RPMs 

have not yet been developed as a result of the 2010 risk assessment and subsequent 

revisions/addenda to the risk assessment. The RPAs and RPMs described above were the result 

of a 1993 consultation with FWS on vertebrate control pesticides. The 2010 risk assessment 

made “May Affect” effects determinations for 56 listed species. The Agency then considered 

options for risk mitigation in the Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) and after considering 

comments and further discussion with USDA/APHIS and FWS, is now specifying mitigation 

measure that include Bulletins for 4 species. EPA will enter into formal consultation with FWS 

for all listed species with “May Affect” and NLAA determinations. 

Comment 26: These labels must be enforceable under FIFRA. Thus, as a mechanism to 

implement conservation measures from the informal and formal consultation process, the EPA 

must use the Bulletins Live! system to incorporate these measures. Accordingly, all product 

labels for gas cartridges must contain the following language: This product may have effects on 

federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat in some locations. 

When using this product, you must follow the measures contained in the Endangered Species 

Protection Bulletin for the county or parish in which you are applying the pesticide. To 

determine whether your county or parish has a Bulletin, and to obtain that Bulletin, consult 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/, or call 1-800-447-3813 no more than 6 months before using this 

product. Applicators must use Bulletins that are in effect in the month in which the pesticide will 
14

be applied. New Bulletins will generally be available from the above sources 6 months prior to 

their effective dates.

EPA Response 26: The Agency thanks CBD and Defenders of Wildlife for the suggested 

language. Below is the language that the Agency will request the registrants to add to their labels 

to reference the Bulletins Live! Two system:

“Endangered Species: It is a Federal offense to use any pesticide in a manner that results in the 

death of an endangered species. Use of this product may pose a hazard to endangered or 

threatened species. When using this product, you must follow the measures contained in the 

Endangered Species Protection Bulletin for the area in which you are applying the product. To 

obtain Bulletins, no more than six months before using this product, consult 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/ or call 1-800-447-3813. You must use the Bulletin valid for the month 

in which you will apply the product.”

The San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner (the County Ag Commissioner) 

submitted comments on the Proposed Interim Decision Document found in the Registration 

Review Dockets: Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118; Carbon and Carbon 

Dioxide EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0705; and Sulfur EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176. 

Comment 27: The County Ag Commissioner requested that the EPA incorporate the existing 

use restrictions in the county specific Interim Measures Bulletins that the FWS has already 

concurred is NLAA three of the listed species, Morro Bay kangaroo rat, San Joaquin Kit fox, and 

blunt-nosed leopard lizard. The recommended limitations can be found on CDPR’s website for 

endangered species and is accessed by using their online database application: PRESCRIBE. 

Additionally, the County Ag Commissioner mentions the Morro Bay kangaroo rat’s habitat 

range only involves nine specific sections.

EPA Response 27: Please see Response 22 above. 

Comment 28: The County recommends that the EPA adopt the existing CDPR use restriction in 

CDPR’s Interim Measures Bulletin for the California red-legged frog. CDPR determined that 

the gas cartridges are NLAA the California red-legged frog, as well as analogous reptiles and 

amphibians (e.g., the blunt nosed leopard lizard). The current CDPR limitations in the Interim 

Measures Bulletin specify that use of gas cartridges is limited to a person supervised by someone 

in distinguishing the dens and burrows of target and not-target species and prohibits uses within 

500 ft of water courses, except in cultivated areas. 

EPA Response 28: Please see Response 22 above.